Notes of the Meeting of the IASC WG Humanitarian Financing Group
30 March 2010

1. Introduction: 

•	The Chair (Daniel Lopez Acuna, WHO) explained that the primary goal of the meeting was to prepare for the “policy” meeting on 28 April.  In the work plan for 2010, three thematic issues had been identified a) funding for early recovery, b) funding for preparedness and c) the transaction costs study. 
•	The Chair mentioned that the group could make some substantial progress on these issues and would use this meeting to hear from the different agencies to make sure that we are in the right track.  
•	The discussion will also touch on the half-day session on humanitarian financing to be held in Rome during the November 2010 IASC WG meeting and begin to identify the issues that could be discussed there.

2. Funding for Early Recovery:

•	The Chair gave an introduction on Funding for Early Recovery.  He noted that all participants were aware that funding for early recovery has not been as strong as we would like, even though the role of early recovery programmes in emergency settings is increasingly well recognized.  UNDP and the Cluster Working group on Early Recovery (CWGER) have been working hard to clarify the issues around early recovery, and the discussions in Montreux early in the month were also very helpful. 

•	UNDP (Tullio Santini) was requested to provide on the discussions on funding from early recovery at Montreux and to suggest what role the HFG could play, and what issues could be discussed on 28 April. 

•	UNDP indicated that discussions on this topic could not advance much while waiting for the outcomes of the Montreux meeting. The discussion on Montreux, in fact, had not produced clear outcomes in terms of action points, or very clear consensus on specific tasks ahead. The conveners are yet to meet and distill their own formal conclusions from the meeting, which will be an important reference for the HFG. 

There is an emerging sense from the CWGER side that the HFG can provide an important contribution. Having a real dialogue with the GHD donors is key to increasing the relevance and impact of our work to support, guide, and stimulate the actions of the GHD donors. On a positive note, some key GHD donors seem to have realized that better results could be obtained through the establishment of a structured dialogue/process to discuss ER financing. Some form of follow up to the discussion in Montreux is being considered, which would be a very important outcome.  Such dialogue, perhaps to be focused in Geneva, could bring together some GHD members and hopefully establish a link with the transition (e.g. INCAF) donors as well. Some of the humanitarian donors are coming to realize that there needs to be a platform in which the agencies would be the third element. The HFG could thus play an important role to shape the way forward. 

•	In terms of funding, we may need to come up with clearer criteria for the future shaping of early recovery requirements in humanitarian appeals, with a view  to making funding for ER more timely and predictable. Donor mechanisms also need to be adjusted.

•	UNDP proposed that a small group should meet and discuss these issues after the IASC WG next week in New York next week. UNDP could convene, and by then UNDP should have received feedback from Montreux conveners about the progress made in formulating the conclusions of the March meeting and the next steps. This could lead to a formalization of a task team that could draft t a paper to be tabled at the 28 April meeting. 
•	

•	The Chair proposed that the discussion should focus on what would be produced as part of the task group. Do we need a better policy definition for the inclusion of early recovery in the humanitarian financing instruments? Do we need elements that can shape suggestions for the donors to engage in early recovery financing?

Discussion:

•	OCHA Geneva (Rob Smith) stated that the Montreux meeting was a broad discussion without clear conclusions. There are, however, elements we can draw forward. There are three obvious actors in this: HFG, CWGER and IASC CAP Sub-Working Group (SWG). IASC CAP SWG focuses on organizing the demand side of the humanitarian action, complemented by the HFG’s work to improve the supply side. This suggests a division of labor in moving ahead on the ER issue. The task team’s role in this could be programmatic development and research. 

•	The Chair pointed out that we should be thinking what specifically the CAP SWG should be doing and what the HFG can do to complement this and try to move the agenda. Do we want more financing of the early recovery components within the humanitarian appeals or do we want better and more presence of elements of early recovery within the appeals? How can we structure better the response of the supply side? What else needs to be produced, by looking at what is not funded and what is funded?

•	The CWGER does not see itself as sufficiently well placed in terms its of capacity to do something significant on the financing side. While donors are considering early recovery more consistently and increasingly see it as part of the humanitarian appeals, this has not gone far enough. 

•	There were group of donors who were fundamentally sympathetic and want to support early recovery. Are we putting up barriers that stop them from funding early recovery?  In Montreux, some donors clearly expressed the need to have more clarity on the objectives and impact of early recovery. 

•	OCHA (Rob Smith) noted that one key function of pooled funds is the opportunity to develop and exhibit optimal donor behavior – setting an example of ways in which we wish all donors would act. ER is an area where pooled funds can set an example for donors.

•	UNICEF (Lisa Doughten) stated that we should avoid too much segmentation of the different types of funding, and overlaps with other groups, such as the UNDG working group. Within transitional financing there has always been a question whether development reaches back or the emergency humanitarian element reaches forward Let us make sure that mainstreaming is incorporated into the discussion and not create another work stream.

•	OCHA (Sanjana Quazi) added that the CHFs have funded early recovery projects that are in CAPs. The question is how to make sure early recovery makes it into the appeals and what is the gap within those appeals. This has less to do with donor policy and more to do with our own policies. When talking about CHFs, how do we prioritize the CHF to be used proportionally, or to be sure that CHF funding is used for early recovery projects. In Haiti, some funding went to early recovery projects, possibly because there was substantial funding available and thus more room for early recovery project consideration.  This was something that does not happen often. 

•	The Chair stated that more research and analysis was needed to identify the next steps, including using the pooled funds as suggested by Rob Smith. 

Action: 
•	The HFG should focus on analyzing the supply side.  The first step is an analysis of the profiling of the 2009/2010 CAPs/ Flash appeal to really assess what has been funded in early recovery. UNDP will assemble the task team that would look into this.

3. Transaction Costs Study

•	The Chair explained that in 2009, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR, WHO and FAO had hired a consultant to undertake a study on the transaction costs associated with pooled funds.  The report was received in the summer of 2009, and an initial response matrix was prepared.  The report is now considered final, so, we should focus on the recommendations in the report, and determine which ones should be prioritized for follow-up action through this group.  Over the last few weeks, UNICEF has been collecting comments, and will now present some proposals for us to consider.

•	  UNICEF (Lisa Doughten) provided a brief summary of Transaction Cost Study Priority recommendations have been agreed upon by different agencies. It was now important to get feedback from NGOs feedback and other agencies to agree on a prioritization.

Discussion:
•	In response to a question on the link between priorities and the time-frames listed in the matrix, Ms. Doughten stated that the timeframes could be discussed.  Another option would be to only implement the ‘priority one’ recommendations.  

•	She further explained that the task team can produce an action plan in the next week, and have something to bring to the 28 April meeting for consideration and approval. 

•	OCHA/CERF (Carolyn Moysenko) indicated that because CERF grants are done on a project basis only, and it would be impossible at this point to accept program level financial reporting, the CERF would like to table the recommendations that affect CERF until after the G-A mandated 5 year evaluation on the CERF is finished in mid-2011, as the evaluators will undoubtedly examine this issue. 

Action:
•	The small group will define indicators/actions for addressing the recommendations, and bring to the 28 April meeting for discussion. The priorities rated number 1 through number 4 will be addressed first. UNFPA has been added to the group and a second round of comments should be sent to UNICEF by 7 April.  

4. Funding for Preparedness

•	The Chair provided a brief overview of funding for preparedness. It is extremely hard to get funding for preparedness.  Past appeals, such as the one in southern Africa two years ago, received a very low response. The recent Norwegian-funded study on a thematic CAP raised more questions than answers.  FAO is the lead agency on this issue, possibly with WFP, so Sandra Aviles from FAO was requested to take the floor. 

•	FAO (Sandra Aviles): There was a general consensus that it would be very useful for the HFG to do a mapping on what funding was already available, and perhaps adding information on bilateral funding to IASC agencies. There is a lot of information that has already been put together on preparedness, capacity building side, and climate change that could serve as a basis to identify funding gaps. 

•	As well it might be possible to propose a new mechanism, with guidance on what funding for preparedness should ideally look like. The next step would be to formalize the task team in order to develop a work plan with the view to having a paper for the November meeting.

Discussion:
•	More time may be needed to structure the policy discussion, and it may be useful to postpone it to the July policy meeting to allow for adequate consultation.

Action:
•	The initial discussion will take place in the 28 April meeting.  It was also agreed that the Task Team should be composed of a mixture of financing and preparedness experts.  

5. November Meeting in Rome 

•	The Chair reminded participants that, during the discussions to establish this group, a number of IASC members identified the need to have the IASC Working Group devote more time to humanitarian financing issues.  
•	 A full day meeting at the IASC WG meeting in November was proposed (rather than a half day) with a defined agenda and proper preparation.  It was important to define clearly what we want to get out of the meeting.

Action:
•	The IASC HFG secretariat was asked to gather and consolidate inputs on possible topics for discussion from the members of the group. 

6. AOB: none 

	Participants	
New York		
	Full name	Agency	
Chair	Daniel Lopez Acuna	WHO	
New York		
	Carolyn Moysenko	CERF/ OCHA	
	Sanjana Quazi	OCHA	
	Kimberly Lietz	OCHA	
	Denise Brown	WFP	
	Lisa Doughton	UNICEF	
	Philippe Grandet	UNFPA	
	Ugo Blanco	UNDP	
Geneva		
	Rob Smith	OCHA	
	Patricia Reber	IOM	
	Simon Lawry White	IASC	
	Tullio Santini	UNDP	
	Nalinee Nippita	UNICEF	
	Sandra Aviles	FAO